EAI 동아시아연구원

행사

Home 행사

Shifting Terrain

2004-11-05

지난 11월 5일 서울프레스센터에서 우리 동아시아연구원이 아시아재단과 하와이대학 East-West Center와 공동으로 주최한 국제 세미나가 있었습니다. "아시아태평지역에 배치된 미군과 주변지방자체단체/시민사회와의 관계"를 주제로 열린 이날 세미나에는 한국, 일본 그리고 필리핀 학자가 나와 각자 주제 발표를 하였습니다.

행사개요

■ The Domestic Politics of the US Military Presence in the Asia Pacific

■ 주최 : 아시아재단, 하와이대 East-West Center, 동아시아연구원

The aim of this project is to understand how and why the presence of US forces in the Asia Pacific is affected by domestic political change, and to suggest ways that alliance policy can better address citizen concerns. Four national cases have been selected for in-depth study: Japan (Okinawa), the Republic of Korea (Seoul), the Philippines (Zambales and Mindanao), and New Zealand (Wellington). In contrast to previous studies on US alliances in the Asia Pacific, this project highlights three aspects of the US military presence that have received little analytical attention, but which are crucial to understanding contemporary policy challenges.

Locating our study of the US troop presence within domestic societies - Shifting Terrain will examine the issue of US troop presence as an issue of national governance. Security policy, like any other realm of public policy, is subject to domestic political activism and interest articulation. We have only a rudimentary understanding of the constellation of interests, and the avenues of interest articulation that affect alliance management in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and New Zealand.

We know little about the underlying factors that have caused citizen protest, the interests that were engaged in resolving disputes, and the extent to which government policy prescriptions addressed domestic concerns. There is a critical need for systematic, in-depth analysis of the impact of the US military on citizen interests, of the means and avenues that citizens use to articulate their interests, and of who in fact are the instrumental agents of policy change.

A cross-national comparison of the Asia Pacific - A second dimension of Shifting Terrain is its comparative approach that will bring to bear the expertise of scholars possessing deep and critical knowledge of national cases. When studied nationally, periods of protest and contention over the US military presence in the region, and in the host country in question, seem to be rooted in the particular circumstances or events of the day. But a cross-national study reveals a broader set of similarities that confront national leaders who must manage their security alliances with the United States and respond to citizen concerns about the US military presence or operations on their soil. Collectively, the research team will identify and analyze the convergent and divergent national experiences in terms of both domestic political forces and of policy responses. All four national cases are democratic societies today, although this was not always the case. There are broader transformations within these societies that bring new interests, new faces, and new positions of advocacy to the fore.

Taking a citizen’s perspective - The third key dimension of Shifting Terrain is to bring to light the varied perspectives of the citizens of the region. Opinion polls continue to gauge public opinion in terms of aggregate sentiments of being "for" or "against" the alliances, but we have little sense of how the day-to-day presence of foreign troops on Asian soil has affected the body politic in such diverse societies as Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines and New Zealand. The overall appreciation of the impact of the alliance does not always translate into support for the presence of US troops within these countries. The sensitivity of citizens to their own governments" compromised sovereignty regarding the US presence is key to understanding national sentiment. Perhaps the most sensitive issue is the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that sets forth the terms for managing the US troop presence. It is in the interpretation of the SOFA that much of the domestic contestation over citizen rights and interests arises. Finally, citizen advocacy is no longer confined to local or even national political advocacy. There is some evidence of cross-national learning on the part of citizens and other civil society actors. What are the linkages that allow these groups to learn from each other? To what extent do they contact and mobilize resources together? Conversely, to what extent do governments also learn from each other? What impact do recent US efforts to redesign force deployments in the region, especially in South Korea, have on citizen perceptions?